(PC) Monson v. Unknown Floor Officers, No. 1:2017cv00395 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER for Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why the Court Should Not Issue Findings and Recommendations, Recommending That This Case Be Dismissed, Without Prejudice, for Failure to Serve signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/2/2018. Show Cause Response due within twenty-one (21) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 TRENELL MONSON, Case No. 1:17-cv-00395-LJO-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT ISSUE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO SERVE 11 12 13 14 v. UNKNOWN FLOOR OFFICERS, Defendants. 15 (ECF NO. 13) 16 21-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Trenell Monson (“Plaintiff”) is a pretrial detainee being held at Fresno County Jail. He 19 is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 20 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21 10) against defendants Unknown Officer 1 and Unknown Officer 2 on Plaintiff’s claim for 22 failure to protect in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF Nos. 11 & 12). 23 As no defendants had been identified in this case, on November 21, 2017, the Court 24 opened limited discovery so that Plaintiff could identify Unknown Officer 1 and Unknown 25 Officer 2, and find service addresses for them. (ECF No. 13, p. 1). Specifically, the Court 26 allowed Plaintiff to request the issuance of third party subpoenas. (Id. at 2). 27 Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to identify and provide service addresses for 28 Unknown Officer 1 and Unknown Officer 2 within 120 days from the date of service of the 1 1 order opening limited discovery, the Court would recommend dismissal of Unknown Officer 1 2 and Unknown Officer 2 for failure to serve. (Id. at 1-2). 3 4 The 120-day period has now passed, and Plaintiff has not identified Unknown Officer 1 or Unknown Officer 2, or even requested a third party subpoena. 5 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days from the 6 date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why the Court should not issue findings 7 and recommendations, recommending that this case be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure 8 to serve and failure to prosecute. 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 2, 2018 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2